Introduction - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 8

neighbors, nation-state neighbors, or even “global citizenship”. Second, the term
connotes neutrality - a relationship in which all parties are on equal footing. In
this case, when I refer to “Canada”, “the United States”, and “Indigenous com-
munities” I also am speaking of neighbor-to-neighbor relationships, nation-to-
nation relationships.
Throughout the text, I will continue to refine and deepen the exploration of
this question of being a good neighbor. However, to start the conversation, I have
outlined a handful of key ingredients that I believe (and others in the field believe)
to be foundational for a “successful neighborly relationship”(see Warry, 2008;
Boyd 2012, for example):

• transparency

• ongoing communication

• respect

• empathy

• equality

• equity.

In fact, these characteristics are foundational to many treaties designed to prepare
for and mitigate transboundary water issues, such as the 1909 Canada-U.S.
Boundary Waters Treaty and the 1964 Columbia River Treaty. In those treaties,
however, a key problem was the scope of signatories and the narrow purview;
Indigenous communities were not included as “neighbors” in the development of
these mechanisms, nor was ecosystem health a consideration. This absence is slowly
becoming rectified, for example with the Columbia River Treaty renegotiation
in which Tribes and First Nations are playing a more prominent role in the decision-
making process (Shurts and Paisley, 2013). The IJC International Watersheds
Initiative (discussed in Chapter 4) also holds an opportunity for greater inclusion
of people living in the watershed, including Indigenous communities (although
early reports indicate much more needs to be done). The concept of a good
neighbor also appears in legal mechanisms such as the Trail Smelter Arbitration,
in which the legal mechanism sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas , which translates to
“use your property so that the property of others is not damaged” is the underlying
principle whereby the State has a duty to prevent transboundary harm (precautionary
principle) and the State should compensate for the transboundary harm it has caused
(polluter pays principle) (Wirth, 1996).
Taking these themes as pillars of a good neighborly relationship, we can identify
the shortcomings (and strengths) of the relationship between Canada, the United
States, and Indigenous communities, in terms of governing shared waters. To do
this, I explore several cases of transboundary water governance along the
Canada-U.S. borderland and make explicit the links between borders, water,
governance, scale, and power. This new lens of inquiry provides an opportunity
to reframe transboundary water governance in a postcolonial and political ecological
framework.